SynthesisDie Anaesthesiologie2022
[Considerations for quality assurance of discussions with relatives in direct association with organ donation].
Synthesis in Die Anaesthesiologie, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiscussions with relatives are relevant and crucial aspects of the organ donation process and contribute to a consolidated and sustainable decision by the families of the deceased. Despite the great importance of family care, there is no systematic analysis of the quality of this communication, in contrast to the diagnosis of irreversible loss of brain function, organ retrieval and organ transplantation. For this reason, organ donation experts were interviewed about recurring characteristics of communication with relatives of the deceased. The aim of this qualitative study was to define criteria for the assessment of the structure and quality of the communication process with relatives for internal quality management in Germany.
methodsBased on a systematic literature review and with the help of the 5‑stage S
resultsIn the qualitative content analysis, 5 main categories with 30 subcategories on quality relevant aspects could be identified (including, standardization and technique of conversation, interview framework and context factors, professional expertise of the interviewers, wishes of the organ donation experts). On this basis, 6 criteria for the structural quality and 7 criteria for the process quality of the discussions with relatives were formulated and summarized in a respective quality bundle. These criteria address, among other things, interprofessional communication, structured training concepts, regular further training of all team members, use of standardized communication and counselling strategies as well as documented preliminary meetings and debriefings, including supervising elements. They emphasize interdisciplinary professionalism and process management in a protected environment as well as quality assured communication and documentation. Recommendations were made for expanding the existing documentation for the organ donation process and for documenting the preliminary meetings and debriefings.
conclusionRecurring communication and process characteristics as well as requirements for the members of the treatment team who conduct the conversation can be identified for the interviews with relatives, which show potential for improvement to various degrees. This justifies the structured derivation of a quality bundle for the structural and process quality family care related to organ donation, which should enable a low-threshold entry into an institution internal systematic quality assessment of communication with relatives in Germany. Due to the different legal, medical and social specifics in an international context, the study results cannot be directly transferred to other countries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34652456What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.